- NZNOG - lists.nznog.org

Re: Outage on APE this evening
by Simon Blake 27 Feb '02

27 Feb '02

On Thu, Feb 28, 2002 at 02:18:36PM +1300, Peter Mott said: > I take it you have a quick means of restoring the current image if the box > displays sillyness on reload? I've got a goodly number of identical switches in Wellington all running the same code release, so I've no reason to believe the 3524's in the Sky tower will display altitude sickness. I've also discovered that if you delete all the HTML off the flash, you can fit two images on (the old and the new), which does give us a way back if they display Auckland specific silliness. In addition, we'll have a tech on standby - he needs to be on site to install gigabit between the switches (part of the reason for the upgrade is to install an IOS release that supports copper GBICs). So if I do royally putz something up (fairly unlikely, given that I've done about 60 of these upgrades in the last two months), we'll have somebody there to type stuff into the boot loader and reinstantiate the old image. Cheers Si - To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog

1 0

Outage on APE this evening
by Simon Blake 27 Feb '02

27 Feb '02

Hi Folks. A quick heads up, there will be an outage of approximately 75 seconds on each of the APE switches tomorrow (Fri Mar 1) morning at 6am (timing is negotiable, if anybody has a good reason to have it earlier or later). This is to upgrade IOS on each box (to the same level as the same switches in Wgtn). Cheers Si - To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog

1 0

RE: Greater Government Control of Icann sought by Icann)
by Andy Linton 26 Feb '02

26 Feb '02

You might like a view from a senior IETF figure. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2002 21:33:53 -0800 From: Randy Bush <randy(a)psg.com> Subject: Re: ICANN reformation from: <http://www.icann.org/general/lynn-reform-proposal-24feb02.htm> [ and the announcement <http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-24feb02.htm> ] "It is now more than three years since the creation of ICANN, and there are some real accomplishments: the introduction of a competitive registrar market, the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy, the creation of seven new global Top Level Domains." <flame> the registrar market is not usefully competitive. the seven new tlds are a failure. the udrp is kind of a success, but it took tanks and guns to keep icann's lawyer from handing it to washington trademark lobbiests and the recording industry. and the new gtlds are failures, many are not even working and neustar had another big layoff last week. the story i get is that the board, after much 'discussion' has let this brilliant idea float. at least the following were arguments o icann is running out of money o icann needs $20m, half, $10m, is to run the root servers o the dnso has been a failure o governments will give icann money imiho, o again, icann is more interested in, and totally focused on, arranging power rather than providing simple stewardship and service. icann is brilliant at rearranging the deck chairs on the titanic. the problem is they have the internet on board. o why does icann have to spend $10m to run the root servers when it never usd to cost anything? they're run voluntarily. heck, i know isps who give free circuits to them! o icann could be run for $1-2m/yr - scale down operations and fancy meetings *completely*, meet at ripe, inet, ... - get back to simple stewardship and management - *earn* the cooperation of cctlds, registries, and they can support a *small* icann, ... o the idea that governments will give icann money is probably flawed. the criminal mob would be more likely to do so, and would likely extract less of a price. o explaining reality to the current icann powers that be is extremely hard. explaining it to governments, who, under this plan, would be given vast power, will be virtually impossible. clueless bureaucrats can actually *break* the internet. o the failure of the dnso is merely the failure of one of icann's sillinesses. it is no loss, it is a demonstration of a fatal misunderstanding of reality. o icann only needs to - coordinate allocation of address space to the RIRs - maintain the root zone file - slowly try to get MsOU with the folk icann actually serves one computer scientist used to do this as a part time job. how much of a mountain can we make of a molehill? o the board should immediately install a president, or whatever the position is called, who actually remembers how to serve the internet simply, with constructive cooperation, and less than $20m/yr. as no one with clue will want to do this job for a long time, it likely needs to be a pro tem appointment. o if the president pro tem is not technical, get a cto or vp tech pro tempore. it will need an understanding of the technology to scale icann back without damaging anything. o there is one good thing for scaling icann down now. the pressure for new gtlds has to be less, seeing the great financial boon the seven new ones have not seen. o another is that the constituencies are tired, years of doing nothing but spending money on fancy hotels and creating massive hot air. years of the icann process may have actually filtered some clue into the players. i suspect that only the combined voices of the isps, ietf, registries, etc. can insert some rationality into this craziness. get icann under control, shrink it back down to something small, and SERVE the internet, stop trying to rule it. </flame> randy -- you are free to redistribute this message - To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog

2 1

Re: Phew looks like we were lucky
by Richard Naylor 26 Feb '02

26 Feb '02

At 01:06 p.m. 27/02/2002 +1300, Juha Saarinen wrote: >On Wed, 27 Feb 2002, Richard Naylor wrote: > > > However, its not that bad. Remember we are DEREGULATED. That means YOU can > > dig up the road. Just fill in the form, comply with the specs and get out > > your shovel. Hook up 12 people and get an operators licence. your own > > letter from the GG. > >I was told that it's not that simple. You need permits, and you have to >pay the local council a hefty sum for the "ground lease" (or a similar >term). The permits are typically called street opening notices. You follow the local code of practice and you should be sweet. The ground lease idea is something that councils are trying on at the moment, just like building owners are trying to get operators to pay them for the cables being in buildings. So just watch how useful a building (or city) is like without services. AKL people know what it was like without power. >This might be a peculiarity for Auckland city, however. Akl CC doesn't get the program. Which is why AKL is referred to as a "bandwidth desert" - and that gets us back to the beginning of the topic. rich richard.naylor(a)citylink.co.nz - To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog

2 1

Lets fix what we don't like! (was: Phew looks like we were lucky)
by Malcolm Lockyer 26 Feb '02

26 Feb '02

But who isn't owned by telecom these days? I mean, southern cross etc. If your not getting your bandwidth via jetscam (ie. TC) then what is it being delivered over? Unless you wanna get frame to clear, and pay a $K or so every month, which you can only get someplaces anyway. Looking at that, there pretty much isn't any alternitives for a lowly hamiltonian, so, the only thing I can do is use jetscam and pay $.2/meg, or go back to dial-up, and 5K/sec d/l's, which I can't stand *anymore*. Oh for the days of fiber to every house! :D The thing I don't get about this, is, if TC found the money to lay copper all those years ago for phones, and, with ppl payin' somthing like $30/month. I understand that there has got somthing behind it to supply bandwidth, etc. but if you compare laying fiber to homes to telephones 30 odd years ago (which is when lots of the current phone stuff started to go in (I think, I could be wrong). I don't really understand how it could cost soo much to lay glass? I understand that it costs a whole bunch for the southern cross cables, but there are ways around it. Get some crazy contract to get tc to lay fiber everywhere, so do somthing like for example have , a couple of big grunty transparent proxies, on gig ethernet, so, all the stuff it has, comes through at say, 10-100mbit/s, but if not, it tribbles through at say, 1/10gig (which is still okay - but 'cause lots of ppl using it the cost would be spread out), then have local traffic commin' through at 10-100mbit/s anyway 'cause local is almost dirt cheap. Or purhaps, some private company, get together a couple of mill from somewhere, and lay some new fiber strands (just string it behind a boat, with sinkers! :P) across the ocean, charge HEAPS less for bandwidth, so that nobody uses the TC one, so they sell it in a hope to get any money back, then we could take over their multi-billion dollar cable!! :D:P I know that last one is a little silly, but, doable. All I'm saying is we should stop sitting 'round and complaining about how much tc charge for jetscam, and do somthing about it! So, who's with me? Lets change what we don't like, and revolutionise how ppl deliver and charge for fast net!!!!!!!!!!! :D Malcolm >From: Rodger Donaldson <rodgerd(a)diaspora.gen.nz> >Reply-To: rodgerd(a)diaspora.gen.nz >To: Mark Foster <blakjak(a)blakjak.net> >CC: nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz >Subject: Re: Phew looks like we were lucky > >On Tue, Feb 26, 2002 at 12:36:37PM +1300, Mark Foster wrote: > > > > > From my point of view bandwidth is very cheap now. Of course this is > > >coming from first connecting to the Internet when we were being charged > > >around $600/MB ($0.60 per kilobyte) for (international) traffic. Now >I'm > > >paying, what, about $0.20 per megabyte (less in some instances) for > > >international traffic. > > > > My problem with this is that you pay $0.20/meg for *traffic* regardless >of > > its target. > >No, you don't, unless you've chosen Telecom as a provider. You pay one >tenth for domestic traffic, last I looked at my pricing plan. Ewen's >talking about TelstraNameOfTheWeek cable modems. > > > Bandwidth has dropped in cost, but we download more, and faster, >nowadays. > >Oddly enough, you may find some relationship between these facts. > >-- >Rodger Donaldson rodgerd(a)diaspora.gen.nz --snip-- _________________________________________________________________ Join the worlds largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com - To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog

1 0

Traffic Shaping
by Sahil Gupta - NET4U 26 Feb '02

26 Feb '02

Hello, Would anyone know how to rate Morpheus and IRC etc as low priority traffic and capped to 128k on a Cisco 2501 with IOS 11.1? Regards, Sahil Gupta NET4U Limited ------------------------------------ NET4U -- www.net4u.co.nz Home of the new - $24.95 128k ADSL Nationwide Internet Service Provider ------------------------------------ - To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog

9 12

Re: Forum for Discussion
by Andrew Garrett 26 Feb '02

26 Feb '02

Refer to your .sig. At 03:37 PM 2/27/02 +1300, CamSpanker wrote: >You mean *web* forums? >I wasn't aware that anyone except internet newbies used them.. > >Food for thought. > >Cheers. > >James Tyson. > "Upgrade your grey matter, 'coz one day it may matter." > >- >To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz >where the body of your message reads: >unsubscribe nznog - To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog

1 0

Forum for Discussion
by Taylor Wilkins 26 Feb '02

26 Feb '02

Is there a suitable forum run in NZ to discuss NZ networking or networking in general? For gaming there is http://www.nzgames.com/forums/ , http://forums.gamer.net.nz/ and http://www.gpforums.co.nz/ If there is currently none would anyone wish to set one up? Cheers, Taylor - To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog

2 1

Greater Government Control of Icann sought by Icann
by Mike Sutton [ awacs ] 26 Feb '02

26 Feb '02

BBC report this today: http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid_1841000/1841216.stm Full text of the ICANN CEO proposal can be found at: http://www.icann.org/general/lynn-reform-proposal-24feb02.htm and a diagram of the proposed new structure at: http://www.icannchannel.de/lynn-proposal.pdf Is this linked to the timing of Jim Higgins Opinion... http://www.stuff.co.nz/inl/index/0,1008,1112116a1983,FF.html State Control of Icann State Control of NZ Domain Whose encouraging running this line... Cabinet ? What do you think Michael Sutton http://www.awacs.co.nz - To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog

2 1

FW: Trapped in a glut of surplus bandwidt with no apparent way o ut
by Frank March 26 Feb '02

26 Feb '02

A further addition to the interesting debate we have been having on Internet 2/broadband. OT perhaps, and relating to the US/Canadian scene, but fascinating. This is taken from the CYBERTELECOM list. <sample quote> Demand will not skyrocket until the LEC controlled copper based local loop is by passed and either fiber or multi-megabit per second wireless reaches the vast majority of homes and businesses. </sample quote> Frank March Specialist Advisor, IT Policy Group Ministry of Economic Development, PO Box 1473, Wellington, NZ Ph: (+64 4) 474 2908; Fax: (+64 4) 471 2658 > -----Original Message----- > From: Gordon Cook [SMTP:cook(a)COOKREPORT.COM] > Sent: Wednesday, 27 February 2002 11:14 > To: CYBERTELECOM-L(a)LISTSERV.AOL.COM > Subject: Trapped in a glut of surplus bandwidt with no apparent way > out > > from pages 31 -33 of may 2002 cook report - published yesterday. > more detail at http://cookreport.com/11.02.shtml > > We find that we are trapped between the jaws of huge ununsed capacity > and content owners protection of intellectual property at any cost. > The politics and economics of our slavish obedience to the "free > market" is constricting the availability of bandwidth by placing > marketing and policy in the hands of those who expect pay-per-use > demand that lives in a walled garden to define and drive the > development of broadband services. > > Only about 5 or 6 percent of the long haul inter city fiber installed > has been lit or will be lit in the foreseeable future. Of the fiber > that is lit by 80 wavelength capable boxes only about 8% of what > these boxes are capable of is in use. Each incremental wavelength > used costs only a few thousand dollars per line card per a couple of > dozen boxes to install. Adding ten gigabits to a backbone is > relatively trivial and compared to the original cost of building and > lighting the incremental cost of doing so is very small. Currently > only about four to eight wavelengths per carrier are lit. > > Consider demand. Just as the demand for dark fiber IRUs has peaked > and fallen off, the demand for wavelengths may now be peaking. Until > the fiber owners start publishing verifiable numbers every quarter on > how many wavelengths they have "sold" via IRU and via lease there is > no credible way to judge changing trends in supply and demand. > > Now we can safely assume that with phone network use having peaked > there will be little in the way of additional demand there. Assuming > that data still doubles every year in North America, you may be able > to sell an aggregate of 20 to 25 new lambdas this year to handle > carrier data growth. But with fifteen American carriers and six > Canadian each with 80 wavelength capable systems you have an easily > provisioned supply of more than 1600 lambdas perhaps only 150 of > which are lit. The problem is that without complete disclosure from > each carrier there is no way of knowing exactly what capacity is > actually in use. > > Nevertheless our experts are all in agreement that used capacity is > only a tiny fraction of what's available. Whether the amount is 4 > percent or 12 percent, under current circumstances, makes little > difference. In short we likely have at least a five or six year > window with current growth before, with the addition of new lambdas, > we fill the capacity of the fibers that have been lit. Sales of dark > fiber IRUs have basically ended leaving long haul growth dependent on > lambdas sales. > > But who will buy? Prices are getting cheap enough for enterprise > networks to consider using lambdas. But right now even the largest > enterprise networks are mostly 155 megabits with a very few 2.5 > gigabit links here and there. Most enterprises don't have the means > of connecting 2.5 gigabits to a campus let along ten. This leaves > other carriers who have a fraction of the capital they once did and > whose need for new capacity has slackened. > > Bill St Arnaud put it this way: "However, even given a rapid growth > in data traffic, I think in the long haul it will be another 3 years > before we see any new fibers lit, another 10 years before new fibers > are blown in existing conduit and another and 15 years before new > conduit is trenched in the ground." The situation seems dire and will > determine the fate of many carriers. Policy makers and financial > markets are being called on to make judgments but neither policy > makers nor financial markets can see the carriers' resources. With > the small resources at our command, The COOK Report certainly cannot > do a definitive census of the carriers. But even if increased > resources could be brought to bear, it is unlikely that carriers > would admit to a highly embarrassing situation. > > We are stuck with a conundrum where until the debt is wiped off > carrier books or until demand skyrockets you have the entire industry > embedded in a continued downward spiral that results in more and more > bankruptcies. Demand will not skyrocket until the LEC controlled > copper based local loop is by passed and either fiber or > multi-megabit per second wireless reaches the vast majority of homes > and businesses. Even then the demand may still be too easily filled > by capacity on hand, until and unless the Canadians can make it > possible to extend a wavelength to every home and business. > > The technology has indeed overwhelmed the global infrastructure and > its installed economic base and rendered it not economically > sustainable. Canada looks to be following a strategy of enabling more > uses for bandwidth while the United States follows a course of > laissez faire in which the market knows best theory is freed to allow > the concentration of media and carriers to consolidate an > infrastructure duopoly where cable and DSL are the only officially > blessed avenues to broadband. The US policy seems likely to be one of > handing the market to huge and powerful old technology companies. The > funny thing is that if Googin is right those companies will fail. > > -- > ======================================================== > The COOK Report on Internet, 431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA (609) > 882-2572 (phone & fax) cook(a)cookreport.com Subscription info & > prices at http://cookreport.com/subscriptions.shtml Summary of > content for 10 years at http://cookreport.com/past_issues.shtml > The Future of the Industry - Googin & > Odlyzko on telco viability - April issue available at > http://cookreport.com/11.01.shtml > ======================================================== Any opinions expressed in this message are not necessarily those of the Ministry of Economic Development. This message and any files transmitted with it are confidential and solely for the use of the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient or the person responsible for delivery to the intended recipient, be advised that you have received this message in error and that any use is strictly prohibited. Please contact the sender and delete the message and any attachment from your computer. - To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog

1 0